Call For Judgement Archive (656-670)

Previous (641-655) - CFJ Index - Next (671-685)

Call for Judgement 656 - September 5, 1998
Subject: Government Type Change
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent Sep 5 1998, 17:16 Acka)
Judge: Ethelred (chosen Sep 5 1998, 17:54 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Any attempt to change government type will effectively result in eternal Anarchy.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule 320 (Governments Rule Suite) says in its first paragraph: "There exists a type of unownable, named entities called Government Types. All Government Types are either Active or Dormant. At most one government type may be Active at any one time; if the rules cause one to become Active and there is already an Active Government Type then the latter will become Dormant an infinitesimal ammount [sic] of time before the former becomes Active. If no Government type is Active then the Government Type Anarchy (if it exists) becomes Active. The Active Government Type is known as The Current Government of Ackanomia."

When the rules are applied to change the government then, during the "infinitesimal ammount [sic] of time" "no Government type is Active" causing Anarchy to become active. At the end of Anarchy there must be a change which causes "no Government type... ...(to be) Active". Therefore the Government Type will go to Anarchy, stop, go back to Anarchy, stop, go back to Anarchy.... etc.

Fah!

Judge's Reasoning:

It is a de facto impossibility to describe something that "happens" for an immeasurably small amount of time. In fact, it is absurd to even contemplate it as having happened at all. The amount of time that "exists" between changes of government is immeasurably small, thus any attempt to describe it as a period of time when there is no government is absurd.

Furthermore, I believe that the rules and game custom support an interpretation of "infinitessimal amount of time" as logically equivalent to "no time at all".

Hence I conclude that there is never a period of time when there is no government, because even if such a state of affairs were to come about, it would not exist in any way such that it would be reasonable for anyone to consider it to have existed before Anarchy takes over, and any rule-sanctioned change of government type to another government type than anarchy would be successful.

Call for Judgement 657 - September 7, 1998
Subject: Forgeries
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent 07 Sep 1998, 02:27 Acka)
Judge: K 2 (selected 7 Sep 1998, 02:31 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

the trinket JT's Barrel of Monkeys was transferred to the treasury, not to TJ

Reasoning:

The trinket did not contain the name of exactly one current player as per 506, so it was not transferred to TJ

/dev/joe's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

Note that the rule uses the test "name of a current or former player" to determine if the trinket is a forgery, and "name of a current player" to decide whether or not to give it to TJ. TJ is not a former player, so the relevant parts of both tests are "name of a current player". Either the trinket was a forgery and given to TJ, or it was not a forgery at all.

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 251 states: Every player has exactly one Ackanomic name.

Rule 506 states on forgeries: A player-created Trinket, whose name contains the name of a current or former player other than that of the creating player, such that the player name in question existed before the Trinket was created, and which has not been owned at some time by each player whose name it contains, is a forgery. ... For the purposes of this clause, the Trinket name "contains" a name N, if it contains a word or phrase of the same length in words as N, that when stripped of any conventional English morphological changes, matches N as described in rule 348. [e.g. "Malenkai's Loophole" and "Malenkai-esque Statues" would be forgeries].

Since, at the time of this CFJ, the player who could legally take the name JT had the ackanomic name of TJ and according to rule 251 TJ has _exactly_ one name, the trinket created by /dev/joe did not contain the name of a current player and was not a forgery. Thus it was neither transferred to the treasury nor to TJ.

I would note that now that TJ has become JT the trinket in question - currently owned by /dev/joe is a forgery; Consider this a public notification ;)

Call for Judgement 658 - September 7, 1998
Subject: Nullity 3504
Initiator: breadbox (sent 7 Sep 1998, 18:09 Acka)
Judge: Rig R. Mortis (chosen 8 Sep 1998, 03:29 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 3504 is a Null Proposal.

Reasoning:

Proposal 3504 specifies seven items. Let's look at them.

The first two items are as follows:

> To the rule harfer, Please add the following text to the rules as rule
> number 1399:
> ---
> [...]
> ---
> And if you would be so kind as to perform the following changes:
>
> [...]
> ---

These are not descriptions of effects or one-time changes to the game state. They are formal requests for another player to do something, and are thus meaningless as game effects.

Alternately, we might interpret these items as actually saying, "The Rule Harfer shall add the following text to the rules ... and perform the following changes ..." It's a bit of a stretch, but if read this way, they are valid effects, since they cause a player to be required to perform certain actions. However, I hardly need to point to that no one player, not even the Rule-Harfer, is permitted to make change the rules. The Rule-Harfer is permitted to make changes to an official document that is supposed to reflect the rules. But "[t]he Official Rules Document is not the Rules."

Next in the proposal is a list of five changes to the game state. Assuming the above two effects are in fact without effect, we have:

> An active voting player with the name Slakko is created and
> associated with the natural person called Duncan Richer.

This is illegal, since the person Duncan Richer is already associated with a player named Slakko.

> All entities owned by Tammany are transferred into the possession of
> Slakko.
> All offices held by Tammany are instead held by Slakko.
> All titles held by Tammany are given to Slakko.

Tammany owns no entities, and holds no Offices or Titles.

> Repeal Rule 1399.

There is no such rule..

Final summation: Null Proposal.

Judge's Reasoning:

breadbox's above reasoning is enough to yield TRUE on this CFJ. I also base my judgement on Rule 250 which claims precedence thus eliminating any conflict between it and Rule 104.

Call for Judgement 659 - September 10, 1998
Subject: Literature Translation
Initiator: Mr. Tambourine Man (sent Sep 10 1998, 18:35 Acka)
Judge: JT (selected Sep 11 1998, 11:30 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE (promulgated Sep 12 1998, 04:02 Acka)
1st Cortex: Cortez's Courtly Cortege (Alfvaen and Calvin N Hobbes) (assigned Sep 12 1998, 11:53 Acka) (too slow)
2nd Cortex: Amicus Draconis (*Alfvaen and Vynd) (selected Oct 18 1998, 11:17 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE (upheld)

Statement:

An accepted proposal containing a translation of part of a work of Homer which was of sufficient length and cited as being by Homer could cause it's proposer to score points due to the rule "Literature" if it were accepted.

Initiator's Reasoning:

I think this should be judged FALSE.Whilst a translation of a foreign artist bears many things in comon with the works of the foreign artist, that artist was not actually the author and hence the literature rule should not apply.

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 210 is quite clear that literature must:

>A) The proposal must contain in its body [as opposed to title] one or
>   more quotations from sources listed on the Literature list. This
>   quotation must be an exact copy of words found in, written, uttered or
>   otherwise communicated by the source, enclosed in quotation
>   marks. It must contain one of the following:

Appealer's Comments:

The key sentence for one line of reasoning, the line of reasoning the Judge apparently took, is:

> This quotation must be an exact copy of words found in, written,
> uttered or otherwise communicated by the source,

What is the correct rendering of "source"? It is well known that in the modern process of publishing literature, the author's manuscript is edited by a staff editor before going into print. In some cases the author has final say, but in some cases the editorial staff has final say, and for a given work or artist, it will not be generally well known who had final say. This also applies to recorded music where producers add vocals to the final mix, etc. What is the "source" in this case. The original author's manuscript, or the staff editor's "translation" of that? Where is the line drawn between translation and editorial rework? What basis does the rule give us to draw the line anywhere?

Moreover, different printings or editions of the same work will have different texts. Examples include *The Stand* by Stephen King and The Bible, Old and New Testaments. What is the "source" in these examples? If *any* is the answer, than *any* publication of a Homeric quote should qualify. It is also known, at least in the case of Plato, that scribes at the time changed his work during transcription, even though the language did not change. Could this have happened with Homer? Who knows? How do we find the "source"?

We could just say that the quote must be in the original language, and forget all these other details, but I do not see where the rules *force* us to do this, but at the same time *allow* us to ignore the other similar problems.

I feel that the Judge took an extremely narrow rendering of the word "source", where a broader, more reasonable rendering is both preferable, customary, and supported by the rule. Which leads to the second line of reasoning:

> All such proofs are adjudicated by the scorekeeper, unless the scorekeeper
> submitted the proposal, in which case it should be adjudicated by the
> President.

The rule provides a mechanism for judgement. Therefore, until the scorekeeper rules on the matter, we cannot decide this CFJ. The rule empowers, indeed mandates, that the scorekeeper determine whether or not an alleged Homeric quote is indeed Literature. Since the word "source" is open to the problems outlined above and in other public posts, there is no judgement-free method of determining whether an alleged quote qualifies as Literature without the scorekeeper's opinion, which I don't believe we have in this case, therefore a verdict of INVALID or UNDECIDED is indicated for this CFJ. (Even if there was a judgement-free method, it would still be adjudicated by the scorekeeper, for as far as I can see, could rule by whim if e wanted to).

Cortex's Reasoning:

We have determined (much to the chagrin of a certain Justice) that it was not possible for any proposal to be considered Literature under the rules as they existed when this CFJ was submited. In order for a quote to count as Literature, Rule 210 requires that it be followed by a citation. That citation is likewise required to appear within square, or note, brackets.

Rule 340 tells us that text appearing within square brackets is a note, and has no semantic meaning. This means that any attempt at providing a citation in accordance with Rule 210 will fail, because the semantically meaningless text included within the brackets does not specify the source of the quote.

saaremaa argues in his appeal that the Scorekeeper can arbitrarily decide to rule proposals to be Lierature. If this were true, no citation would be necessary for proposals to be considered Literature. In this case, the verdict for this CFJ would be TRUE, because the statement only asks if the proposal it describes *could* be considered Literature. However, the Scorekeeper's powers of decision are actually limited in several ways. One limitation is that the Scorekeeper is only called upon to judge the "proofs" that a given quote is, or isn't, Literature. Thus the Scorekeeper could not determine that a proposal which contained no quotes was Literature. In this case, the CFJ specifies that the proposal contains some quote(s). However, The section of Rule 210 which gives the Scorekeeper the power to determine a quote's "literatureness" comes before the section of Rule 210 which requires that all quotes be followed by a proper citation. This being the case, intrarule precedence tells us that a quote must be properly cited for it to be considered Literature and cause the point gain described in the statement.

Thus, for a proposal to be considered Literature, and to generate the scoring effects described in the statement of this CFJ, it must have a properly cited quote. As providing a proper citation is impossible, it is not possible for any proposal to be Literature. We therefore uphold the original verdict of FALSE on this CFJ. Let the appealer be penalized 5 points.

Call for Judgement 660 - September 11, 1998
Subject: Burying Potato
Initiator: Piz (sent Sep 11 1998, 09:15 Acka)
Judge: Wild Card (chosen Sep 11 1998, 11:33 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE (promulgated Sep 15 1998, 12:19 Acka)
Appealed by JT
Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and Mr. Tambourine Man) (15 Sep 1998 15:09 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is legal for the Magic Potato to constitute part of a Treasure.

Reasoning:

The Magic Potato is a non-tradable entity, because its tradability status is not explicitly defined in the Rules (Rule 901), and in such a case an entity is non-tradable by default (Rule 500.2).

Rule 1217 states:

"...the player attempting [to bury a Treasure] must state which one or more of his tradeable entities collectively constitute the Treasure..."

Other than this phrase, there is nothing in the Rules that regulates the contents of a Treasure. This does not expressly *limit* the contents of a Treasure to tradable entities, although it requires that at least one tradable entity be part of a Treasure.

Vynd's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

I disagree with the initiator's reasoning on two points.

1) I do think that Rule 1217 prohibits the burying of non-tradeable entities. It specifically says that the tradeable entities specified by the burier "collectively constitute the treasure." So Rule 1217 requires the buried to specify what "collectively constitutes" the treasure, and the only items it allows to be specified are tradeable entities.

Even if Rule 1217 does not explicitly forbid burying non-tradeable entities, I believe that Rule 101 would still prevent such an action. Rule 101 tells us that actions described in the rules can only be made in accordance with the rules. Burying non-tradeable entities is not in accordance with the method described in Rule 1217, the only method described in the rules, and thus by Rule 101 burying non-tradeable entities is impossible.

Judge's Reasoning:

[none]

Appellant's (JT's) Reasoning:

See Vynd's Bronze Torch reasoning, which I feel eloquently states the case.

Cortex's Reasoning:

We agree with the comments made by Vynd.

Call for Judgement 661 - September 11, 1998
Subject: Whamiol Trade
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent Sep 11 1998, 09:55 Acka)
Judge: Vynd (selected Sep 11 1998, 11:35 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Slakko had a Whamiol on September 8th, 1998 at noon.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Slakko posted, on the 8th at 03:43 Ackatime, the suggestion that SPAM transfer its Whamiol to em. Since apparently the other members of SPAM have their approvals proxied, this was enough for the action to be attempted. However, since Gadgets in general(and Whamiols in specific) are not gift entities, Slakko was required to accept the trade before it occurred, and this did not happen. (Just being the one to suggest a trade to oneself doesn't qualify as acceptance, does it?)

For that matter, I don't believe that Slakko's more recent attempt succeeded either, for the same reason. But if the former attempt did succeed, then e will have received some points(perhaps the maximum, because it's been a long time since the Whamiol last awarded points to its owner...)

Judge's reasoning:

I agree with the initiator, the trade did not occur. To suggest that an organization take an action of offering a trade is by no means the same thing as accepting the trade once it is offered. Indeed, in a situation where approval was longer in coming, where the other members had not all been proxied, the person who made the suggestion might not even want the offered trade anymore. Furthermore, how can someone accept a trade which has not yet been offered? I judge this FALSE.

Call for Judgement 662 - September 12, 1998
Subject: Illegal Brie Acquisition
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent 12 Sep 1998, 07:59 Acka)
Judge: marsboy (selected 12 Sep 1998, 08:58 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE (promulgated 18 Sep 1998, 18:50 Acka)
Appellant: K 2
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (breadbox and saaremaa) (selected 21 Sep 1998, 12:15 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Weishaupt has a Brie

Reasoning:

K 2 awarded me a brie when I joined. Because how to gain a brie was not defined in the rules at that time, this was either an illegal or an impossible action. Therefore by the clause in rule 701 which states If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it is still a Crime. I do in fact have the Brie because it has been publically knowable and it has gone unreported for 14 days.

Judge's Reasoning:

no brainer, folks.

Appellant's Reasoning:

The financier doesn't have the power to award a Brie only rule 611 has ever had that power.

>From rule 701:

[pragmatism clause] ... " The preceding does not apply to the case of events which occur automatically, but whose occurrence is not (or erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great Trombone]."

Brie awards are/were automatic thus the pragmatism clause does not apply.

Cortex's Reasoning:

The Court would agree that Brie awards were automatic under the then-current ruleset, in the sense that they were impossible. An erroneous report of an earning of a Brie would not in fact fall under the province of Rule 701. (Although note that in actuality the Financier made no such report; he merely added a Brie to the list of Weishaupt's possessions in his personal records and on his web pages. Thus the initiator's description that "K 2 awarded me a Brie" is somewhat misleading.)

The Court also wishes to note that Rule 611 stated that "A player may gain a cheese only by doing the following." Cheeses, and Bries in particular, are unusual in that only Rule 611 is permitted to describe a situation in which they may be awarded. Thus, numerical precedence would have prevented Rule 701 from having an effect in any case.

Penalty to the original judge: 3 points.

Call for Judgement 663 - September 13, 1998
Subject: CSSR holder.
Initiator: rufus (sent 13 Sep 1998 14:07 Acka)
Judge: Weishaupt (selected 13 Sep 1998, 17:03 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
rufus is not CSSR.

Reasoning:
K 2 was no longer president when e appointed rufus.

Judge's Reasoning:
K 2 was acting president. All offices except capital offices (and wizard is the only such right now) are held in acting capacity by the prior officeholder until the new officeholder is elected.

Call for Judgement 664 - September 14, 1998
Subject: Null Proposal
Initiator: breadbox (sent Sep 14 1998, 08:52 Acka)
Judge: Fo (chosen Sep 14 1998, 12:44 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposal 3555 modified the text of Rule 611 ("Le Grand Fromage").

Reasoning:

Proposal 3555 states, in part:

> After the following text as delimited by GOUDA
> GOUDA
> [...]
> GOUDA
> insert the following text as delimited by BRIE
> BRIE
> [...]
> BRIE

Call for Judgement 665 - September 14, 1998
Subject: Weishaupt Agenda CWCFJ
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent 14 Sep 1998, 12:40 Acka)
1st Judge: Robert Sevin (selected 14 Sep 1998, 12:47 Acka) (declined)
2nd Judge: Ethelred
Judgement:

Statement:

Reasoning:

Call for Judgement 666 - September 18, 1998
Subject: Biblical PWCFJ
Initiator: Wild Card (sent Sep 18 1998, 10:50 Acka)
Judge: JT (selected Sep 18, 1998 11:16 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is currently equally legal and illegal for a quote from a book in what I will call the "Apocropha" to be literature.

Reasoning:

The Apocropha is deemed by some to be part of the Old Testament of the Bible, by others not.

Judge's Reasoning:

As stated in Vynd's judgement of CFJ 609 (August 02, 1998 Digest V03.N253), that just because it might be indeterminate whether a certain action is either legal or illegal does not mean that the action is both legal and illegal. That reasoning alone would be sufficient (in my opinion) to judge this PWCFJ false.

However, unlike Vynd on CFJ 609, I'm not particularly pressed for time, and so would like to address the underlying issue of whether quoting from the Apocrypha would be considered a valid literature quotation.

In my judgement of CFJ 659, I was dealing specifically with a work where an 'artist' was the quoted source. Given the text of the literature rule, which requires an exact quote from a source, I did not see a valid case for allowing translation of a specific artist's work. In the case where the source is the work (such as the bible), I would say that any literature which could validly be claimed as a representation of that work would be valid as falling under that source.

The difference to me the difference between the following two (exemplary only) entries for a literature list 'Artist: Machiavelli' and 'Work: The Prince'. In the first case, I would have to argue that only the original works of Machiavelli would constitute literature and in the latter, any reasonable work titled 'The Prince' would be valid *EVEN if it bore no relation to Machiavelli's original and were in fact a bedtime story (for example)*.

While the restrictiveness in the case of the author, and the permissiveness in the case of the work might seem at odds, they do not seem inconsistant to me, and in fact seem to follow as a direct result of the words 'exact copy'. In the case of an artist, an exact copy would have to be as that author wrote it. In the case of a work, an exact copy would be words directly quotes from any text which bore that title.

Therefore, I think it is determinable under the rules whether or not a quote from the Apochrypha would be valid as literature (yes, in my opinion) and thus this CFJ is FALSE on that count as well.

Call for Judgement 667 - September 24, 1998
Subject: Another weird rule-harfing question
Initiator: breadbox (sent 24 Sep 1998, 03:52 Acka)
1st Judge: Robin Hood (chosen 24 Sep 1998, 03:56 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: risE (chosen 16 Oct 1998, 12:33 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 3601 amended Rule 594.4 ("Blueprint: Vending Machine").

Reasoning:

The amendment in question from Proposal 3601 stated:

3. Amend Rule 594.4, "Blueprint: Vending Machine" by inserting after the second paragraph the paragraph from Rule 594.11, "Blueprint: Bonus Vote Add-On" which begins "While an unbroken Bonus Vote Add-On is strapped" and delete that paragraph from Rule 594.11.

However, at this point in time, there was no Rule 594.11, nor was there any other rule with the title "Blueprint: Bonus Vote Add-On" - because Proposal 3601 had repealed such a rule several infinitesimal moments beforehand.

Now, had the text instead been: "... the paragraph from what had been Rule 594.11 immediately before the adoption of this proposal ...", this would have worked.

Alternately, had Proposal 3601 created a new Rule 594.11 inbetween the repeal of the original and the above quoted text, then that new rule would have unambiguously been the source.

I think that this CFJ should be False, but I would like to get a second opinion, so to speak.

Reasoning:

I think that the text referred to in proposal 3601 is unambiguous (there is no other text which this could reasonably refer to) and under that consideration alone, rule 594.4 should have been amended. Even though this rule has been repealed, it still exists as a piece of text, even if it is outside the domain of the game. (e.g. A proposal to append the first paragraph of Henry David Thoreau's "Walden" to an existing rule would be valid even though "Walden" does not in any meaningful way "exist" as a piece of text within the game. [Ok, maybe as literature, but it's just an example.])

Call for Judgement 668 - September 24, 1998
Subject: Random Determination and Tornado
Initiator: JT (sent 24 Sep 1998, 11:59 Acka)
Judge: K 2 (selected 24 Sep 1998, 12:35 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

JT is Sheltered during the most recent Tornado.

Reasoning:

Alfvaen's post of the random determination of scores at the end of the last Tornado contained errors, and in fact had Fo who was Sheltered having his score changed. Alfvaen attempted to claim that this was a typo, but I don't see that as a valid typo (Fo is obviously spelled correctly). Since the random determination was done incorrectly and has not been redone, the actual Tornado has not come yet since it depends (to quote from rule 230) on a random determination for it's full specification.

I also submit the following reasoning which I presented ad-hoc in an email discussion with Fo over this.

>>That wouldn't matter.  Remember the kerfuffle about Gnomesday - same
>>principle applies.  The determination is based on who was not Sheltered
>>at the time of the Tornado.  Just because it changes the scores later
>>does not mean that people can move in the intervening period and change
>>whether or not they are affected.
>
>Actually this case is not quite so clear-cut to me.  The Gnomesday one,
>only a few peoples actual boon *could* have required a random
>determination.   For the Tornado, the tornado's resolution itself
>requires that random determination and thus shouldn't (according to the
>rules) have occured until the determination was publically knowable.   If
>you'll recall, I was also unsure on the Gnomesday one, and only the fact
>that some of the people required a 'secondary' determination swayed me.
>
>I think it's similar to the rafting trip (in both cases).  The trip
>doesn't actually occur until the OiCoRT determines the outcome of the
>trip (break conservation laws, daring adventurers, or whatever).   The
>daring adventurers (or the loss of a trinket) requires a secondary
>determination to see which boon is gained or trinket is lost, but by that
>point the trip has occured.
>
>Gnomesday, I think was similar to the second phase of the rafting trip in
>that, the random determination was a secondary effect of applying the
>primary effect of gnomesday (which was deterministic).   The tornado
>requires the random determination to be fully specified and thus I don't
>believe has actually occured yet since the first random determination
>contained errors.

Judge's Reasoning:

I rule this CFJ FALSE 'cause Hey Hey It's Saturday is on TV.

As I stare at the words I just typed I realize that my reasoning won't stand up for 3 reasons:
i) its 8:20 so Hey Hey just finished.
ii) I have no desire to watch The Footy Wards Grand Finale (which is about to come on).
iii) I don't have a TV.

Oh well, I shall... ummm... quote some rules instead (yeah that's it quote some rules :) :

(Rule 230; Random Events) " II. An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification shall not occur until the random determination is publicly knowable. "

and (Rule 1313; Tornado) " A Tornado shall sweep though Acka at the time of the Summer Solstice, Winter Solstice, Vernal Equinox, and Autumnal Equinox. Tornadoes are dangerous entities. Whenever a Tornado sweeps through Acka, all active and vacationing players who are non-Sheltered are affected. The scores of all affected players shall be randomly reassigned among the affected players. ... "

It seems reasonable to interpret the second rule fragment as defining a series of events: 1) The Tornado sweeps. 2) Players are affected. 3) Affected scores are reassigned.

The Tornado "sweeping" is "An Event" (rule 203.II) that affects certain players which causes a random score reassignment "event". Only the distribution of points requires a random determination, thus the tornado shall sweep and vacuum when the rules dictate (in this case at the Vernal Equinox :p ) and the point distribution shall wait for its random determination.

Equating the entire application of rule 1313 as "An Event" seems less reasonable.

So what does this have to do with this CFJ? Damned if I know. I wasn't paying attention - I told you Hey Hey's on....

If the tornado sweeping event did not require a random determination then the Vernal Equinox (which occurred on 23rd of September at about 1:37am) marked JT as an affected player since e was un-sheltered at the time. JT's subsequent movement did not cause em to become sheltered at the time of the Vernal Equinox regardless of whether the random score determination had occurred yet or not as that would be retroactive and thus downright Evil.

Call for Judgement 669 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Characteristic Definition
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent 27 Sep 1998, 03:11 Acka)
Judge: Fortunato (selected 27 Sep 1998, 05:50 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Sanity is a characteristic

Initiator's Reasoning:

I think that this should be ruled false, as sanity doesn't define itself as a characteristic

Judge's Reasoning:

The only place in the Rules I could find a reference to Sanity is in the Ackanomicon Rules, where it states:

"Terrorizing pages (3 pages): These pages inspire indescribable terror in all who read them, causing a loss of 15 points and 3 Sanity Points."

Since all other Characteristics are defined as such, I do not believe that Sanity is a Characteristic.

Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judge: Eris (selected 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE
Appellant: Slakko
Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Vynd) (selected 27 Sep 1998, 10:07 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.

Reasoning:

Do you need any?

Judge's Reasoning:

I would like to judge this a certain way, I won't tell you which, because I am aware of certain flaws and of my inevitable disappointment, but Greed has always been one of my favourite colours.

Appellant's Reasoning:

(none)

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

We find no support for the initiator's statement in the Rules. Those needing further explanation should refer to Rules 101 and 215. Thus, the court has decided to overturn the verdict to FALSE. Surprise.

Let the first Judge of this CFJ be penalized 10 points.

Previous (641-655) - CFJ Index - Next (671-685)